Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anumulagudem Narasamma vs Gopal Krishna Dwivedi on 21 April, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CONTEMPT CASE NO.633 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Respondents /contemnors for wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.17951 of 2019 dated 28.11.2019.
At the stage of admission, with the consent of both parties, this Court issued a direction in W.P.No.17951 of 2019 dated 28.11.2019, permitting the respondents to engage the services of Private Structural Engineer for determining the value of the structures removed at Mangampet Bus Stand area. But, till date no action was taken by the respondents. Though the order dated 28.11.2019 was communicated to the respondents, they did not take any action and such inaction amounts to wilful disobedience of order passed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner requested to punish the contemnors by imposing punishment/penalty under Section 12 of Contempt Court Act, 1971.
One Sri Ketan Garg, Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Y.S.R Kadapa District, is the officer, who is dealing with the issue being a Sub-Collector for Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District was impleaded/substituted as the 5th respondent in the place of Sri M. Madhusudhan Reddy, IRAS, vide order in I.A.No.2 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021. Since the order is not complied with by the 5th respondent, the present contempt case is filed. It is contended by the petitioner that, despite the information furnished to the 5th respondent, by this petitioner, no action has been taken. Hence, the present contempt case is filed. 2
The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit, denying wilful disobedience to comply with the order passed by this Court and pleaded that he has got highest regard and respect to this Court. It is contended that, the 2nd respondent took charge as Vice Chairman and Managing Director of AP Mineral Development Corporation Limited on 03.06.2020. In view of the same, though the 2nd respondent did not have personal knowledge of order dated 28.11.2019 in W.P.No.17951 of 2019, but after taking over charge, he monitored the orders of this Court, thereby, he did not violate the order passed by this Court. The 2nd respondent stated that the petitioner‟s family members have got 14 plots in lieu of 9 structures (Son, daughter-in-law, Granddaughter), as such, the 2nd respondent did not violate the order of this Court and requested to close contempt case, The 4th respondent/ Chief Project Officer filed separate counter affidavit, while admitting the order passed by this Court in this writ petition, inter-alia, contended that the 3rd respondent/District Collector, YSR Kadapa District did not take any steps and contended that, when the matter was listed for admission, apparently, a letter dated 07.11.2019 was addressed by the Executive Engineer (R&B) to the Chief Project Officer, APMDC was placed on record before this Court. As per the said letter, a request was made to the Chief Project Officer to give/obtain permission for engaging consultant services at their own cost to prepare the structure valuation, basing on which, the evaluation and authentication will be made by the Roads and Buildings Department and submit the same to the authorities concerned. Along with the said letter, quotations were also called for. The 3 letter was responded to by the Chief Project Officer through letter dated 12.11.2019 whereunder, it has been stated that the Project Officer has accepted the 3rd party survey for preparation of estimate cost of structure. Unfortunately, this aspect has not been brought to the notice of this Court at the stage of admission.
It is further submitted that physical structures of bus stand area were not available and the estimation could not be done by the third party and that the measurements of the structure of the bus stand area were taken in the presence of the owner/representative of the house during the year, 2006 and that the records are available with the RDO‟s Office, which were certified by the R&B Engineers during the year 2006. A letter dated 15.09.2020 was addressed to the APHSB Division, Rajampet, Kadapa requesting to complete the estimation value of the structures for whom site was not provided. A letter dated 14.12.2020 stating that due to non-availability of records of the structures at RDO‟s Office, the estimate of structures is not completed.
Finally it is contended that, on 12.11.2019, the 4th respondent accepted the third party survey for preparation of report estimating value of structure, by a letter dated 12.11.2019, thereby, the order passed by this Court is complied with and nothing is violated and requested to dismiss the contempt case.
The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit, contending that, when the matter was listed for admission, a letter dated 07.11.2019 addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Project Officer, APMDC was placed on record before this Court. As per the said letter, a request is made to the Chief Project Officer to 4 give/obtain permission for engaging Consultant Services at their own cost and prepare the structure valuation, basing on the evaluation and authentication by the R &B Department and submit the same to the authorities concerned. Along with the said letter, quotations were also enclosed. The letter was responded by the Chief Project Officer by his letter dated 12.11.2019 where under it is stated that, through the said letter the Chief Project Officer has accepted the third party survey for preparation and estimate value of structure and this aspect has not been brought to the notice of this Court at the stage of admission.
It is also contended that the authorities of APMDC Limited were intimated that the physical structures of the bus stand area were not available and estimation could not be done by the third party and that the measurements of the structures of the bus stand area were taken in the presence of the owner/representative of the owner of house during the year, 2006 and that the records are available which were certified by the R&B Engineers during the year, 2006. A letter dated 15.09.2020 with a copy marked to the petitioner was addressed to the Executive Engineer (R&B), APHSB Division, Rajampet, Kadapa requesting to complete the estimation of structures value for whom sites were not provided and they have replied through their letter dated 14.12.2020 stating that due to non-availability of records pertaining to the structures at RDO‟s Office, Rajampet, the estimate of structures is not possible.
As the directions of this Court stood complied by the 4th respondent/Chief Project Officer, APMDC Limited, Mangampet on 12.11.2019 by giving their acceptance in respect of the third party survey for the preparation of estimated value of structure, thereby, 5 the question of violation of the order passed by this Court does not arise.
It is further submitted that a copy of approved Ex-gratia proposals pertaining to Reach No:V of Mangampet Village by then District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa vide Ref No:G/3627/2003, dated 28.10.2003 and a copy of proceedings of RDO, Rajampet vide Ref No:H/564-A/2000, dated 30.10.2003 for reference to the Chief Project Officer, Barytes Project APMDC Limited, Mangampet and Executive Engineer (R&B), APSHP Division, Kadapa, Rajampet, are placed on record for the reference of Chief Project Officer, Barytes Project, APMDC Limited and Executive Engineer, Rajampet and finally requested to close the contempt case.
During hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court, that the physical verification report of the structures filed by the Structural Engineer dated 01.03.2021. According to the report, Sri Prasad Namala, Registered Structural Engineer, who is engaged by APMDCL visited the site on 26.02.2021 along with Sri M. Sudarsana Reddy, Chief Project Officer and Sri Benarjee and found no structure in the particular Sy.No.120, Bus Stand Area, Mangampet, YSR Kadapa District. It is also stated that Sri Prasad Namala also met Sri Ketan Garg, IAS, Sub-Collector, Rajampeta and Sri Sideswara Rao, Tahsildar, for verification of the above said subject land and Sri Prasad Namala was orally instructed that the said structure does not exist in that particular R.Sy.No.120, Bus Stand Area, Mangampet, YSR Kadapa District. Further, Sri Prasad Namala verified whether any records are available with the office of Revenue Divisional Officer, but found no records pertaining to the 6 said land. Thereafter, he submitted a report without estimating the value of the structures.
The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the alleged engagement of the private structural engineer providing estimation, reiterating the contents of the petition, while denying the material allegations in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
W.P.No.17951 of 2019 dated 28.11.2019 was disposed of by this Court, permitting the respondents to engage the services of private structural engineer within one week from the date of the order. The purpose of engaging the services of private structural engineer is only to value of structures which were removed at the bus stand area of Mangampet in Survey No.120 of Mangampet, Village YSR Kadapa and to arrange payment of the value of the structures issued by the private structural engineer.
The contention of the contemnors is that the records are not available and structures are not in existence at the place where the structures were allegedly removed. But the measurements of the structures were taken in the presence of owner/representative of the owner of house during the year, 2006 and records are available with the RDO‟s Office which were certified by the R&B Engineer, during the year, 2006, as admitted by the Chief Project Officer/4th respondent in paragraph No.3 of his counter affidavit. But, based on the information available with him, a letter dated 15.09.2020 was addressed to Executive Engineer (R&B), Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District requesting to complete the estimation of value of structures for whom sites were not provided. The estimates of 7 structures could not be completed due to non availability of the records of the structures. Therefore the admission the 4th respondent in paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit is suffice to conclude that the records are available with the office of RDO i.e Sub-Collector. The Sub-Collector filed counter affidavit denying availability of the records and contended that the order dated 28.11.2019 was complied with by the respondent/contemnors.
In view of the acceptance of the 4th respondent in the letter addressed to the 5th respondent, the Tahsildar issued direction to engage the services of engineers to estimate the value of the structures which were removed. Measurements of those structures were already taken in the presence of owners/representatives of the owners of structures and the same is averred in the counter affidavit, the admission made by the 4th respondent is a judicial admission which is binding on him. Raising a contention that physical record is not available in the RDO‟s office is strange contention somehow to overcome the difficulty in the contempt proceedings by the 5th respondent. In case the records are not available, it is for the Sub-Collector/5th respondent and his staff to explain as to what had happened to the records in the office. But no such explanation was forthcoming in the counter affidavits filed by any of the respondents. On the other hand, they alleged violation of report submitted by private structural engineer Nammla Prasad. In his report dated 01.03.2021 it is stated that the records are not available in the office therefore he could not assess the value of the structures in Survey No.120 of bus stand area Mangampet, Village YSR Kadapa. It is not known whether the records are actually not available or wantonly kept somewhere. In 8 the absence of any explanation as to the reason for non-availability of the records by the 5th respondent, who is supposed to be the custodian of those records, it can be safely concluded that the records are wantonly kept elsewhere to avoid payment of compensation, on assessment by structural engineer.
A strange contention is raised by respondents 4 and 5 is that the order passed by this Court was complied with on 28.11.2019. Compliance of order of this Court even before passing order does not arise, it is nothing but a roose to avoid contempt. Though report of Engineer is filed, no details of engagement of services of Namala Prasad in writing is filed to accept compliance. The report of Prasad does not disclose any details regarding engagement of his services and dates of engagement of services. In the absence of any details, it is difficult to accept the contentions about compliance of order. But, the reason for granting permission to engage the services of private structural engineer is only for assessment of the value of the structures in Survey No.120 of Bus Stand Area Mangampet, Village YSR Kadapa, not for any other purpose. Therefore, alleged engaging the consultancy services of the private structural engineer without valuing the structures in Survey No.120 of Bus Stand Area, Mangampet of Rajampet Division would not serve any purpose. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents failed to pay compensation for the structures referred above and failed to provide alternative site. Hence, the strange contention raised by the contemnors is hereby rejected, as it is devoid of merit. Therefore, non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17951 of 2019 dated 28.11.2019 to engage the services of private structural engineer within the time fixed by 9 this court for assessment of value of the structures in Survey No.120 would amount to clear violation of order of this Court deliberately and consciously, which can be described as a „civil contempt‟ as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Before recording finding on intentional violation of the order, I find it apposite to narrate the legal position for better appreciation of the case and application of law.
The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) as follows: "contempt of court means, civil contempt or criminal contempt", Whereas clause (b) of Section 2 defines Civil Contempt as "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court."
In view of definition under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, non-compliance or deviation of the order of the Court would be construed as civil contempt. The Contempt jurisdiction is not conferred on the Subordinate Courts and it is only conferred on the Court of record, in view of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According to it, the High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The jurisdiction of contempt is independent jurisdiction of its original nature. Therefore, this Court is competent to exercise such power to punish a person, who is guilty of contempt and this jurisdiction is enjoyed by Courts, is only for the purpose of upholding the jurisdiction of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Court must not react by the emotion, but must act judicially. Contempt 10 proceedings are intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and strict adherence of rule of law. Once, the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court shall initiate action, uninfluenced by the nature of direction in a pending lis before the Court vide judgment in Priya Gupta and others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others1). Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hyper sensitive or swang by emotions, but must act judicially (Vide:
Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. SK.
Monobbor Hossain2).
"Contempt" is disorderly conduct of contemnor causing serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into two categories one which has a transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administration of Justice (Vide: Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others3).
In the present facts of the case, Respondent/contemnor with scant respect to the order passed by this Court tried to demolish the wall without disposing of the representation. The admission made in Paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit is suffice to hold that, Respondent/contemnor violated or disobeyed the order of this Court willfully, knowing the ill-consequences that flow from such 1 JT 2013 (1) SC 27, 2012 (12) SCALE 289 2 (2012)3 SCALE 534 3 (2011) 6 SCALE 220 11 violation i.e. conscious violation of the order of this Court, which amounts to violation of Rule of Law. Therefore, the act of Respondent/contemnor by his disorderly conduct caused serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into two categories one which has a transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither away by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administration of justice.
(vide Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India4) When once an order is passed, it is the duty of the authorities to implement the same without giving any interpretation and if the order is contrary to law, they are at liberty file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. But, without preferring an appeal, the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is sought to be implemented, as directed by this Court and such act of the respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah5, wherein, it is held as follows:
31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a 4 (2011) 6 SCALE 220 5 (2007) 7 SCC 689 12 specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.
32. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant-Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected.13
The same view is expressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others6, where the Court held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
Applying the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court to the present facts of the case, this Court can safely conclude that the respondent Nos.4 and 5/contemnors, who 6 (2004) 7 SCC 261 14 disobeyed the order dated 28.11.2019, are liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as they intentionally suppressed the record and consciously violated the order passed by this Court. Such conduct would not only impede the rule of law, but also cause serious damage to the judicial institution and judicial administration. Therefore, such conduct of Respondent Nos.4 and 5/contemnors cannot be encouraged by this Court, taking lenient view against such person who caused serious damage to the judicial institution itself.
As discussed above, and in view of the findings recorded by this Court in the above paragraphs, Respondent Nos.4 & 5/contemnors are liable for punishment as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In the result, contempt case is allowed sentencing the Respondent Nos.4 and 5/Contemnor to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). In the event of failure to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send copy of the order to the District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, for recovery of amount of fine under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and by following procedure as per law.
Respondent-4/Contemnor - Sri M. Sudarsana Reddy, Chief Project Officer, APMDCL, Mangampet Barytes Project, Mangampet Kadapa District and Respondent-5/Contemnor _ Sri Ketan Garg, Sub-Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Ragampet, Revenue Division, YSR Kadapa District are directed to report before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on 25.04.2022. 15 On their reporting, the Registrar (Judicial) shall commit him to civil prison in accordance with the order.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5/Contemnors requested this Court to suspend the above order, so as to enable them to prefer an appeal.
At request of the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 and 5/ Contemnors, the above order is suspended for a period of ten (10) days to prefer appeal(s). In case no appeal(s) is/are preferred or no stay is granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal, if any preferred, Respondent Nos.4 and 5/Contemnors shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 02.05.2022 before 05.00 P.M. On such surrender, the Registrar (Judicial) shall commit them to Jail to undergo punishment.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 21.04.2022 Note: issue CC by 26.04.2022 B/o PGT